1997-01-19 - Re: Monitoring the monitors [Was: Gilmore and Sandfart suck big dicks]

Header Data

From: aga <aga@dhp.com>
To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
Message Hash: 0d249d4bd42e804b59c26c3d85f2d4504b057f1c60885b46278bfa48b755649a
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970119090855.7506J-100000@dhp.com>
Reply To: <199701190526.XAA00327@manifold.algebra.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-19 14:10:42 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 06:10:42 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: aga <aga@dhp.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 06:10:42 -0800 (PST)
To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring the monitors [Was: Gilmore and Sandfart suck big dicks]
In-Reply-To: <199701190526.XAA00327@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970119090855.7506J-100000@dhp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> Bryan Reece wrote:
> > 
> >    Dale Thorn wrote:
> >    > 
> >    > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> >    > > Someone wrote to me:
> >    > > >Did you not mean any homo who has ever shaffted Gilmore and Sandy can
> >    > > >write what the fuck they like but straight or intelligent or NORMAL
> >    > > >people will have to be filtered.
> >    > 
> >    > > Yes, that's precisely how Sandfart's moderation will work. Homosexuals
> >    > > like Jason Durbin will continue to post personal attacks on Gilmore's
> >    > > many "enemies", but the victims of the libel will not be able to respond
> >    > > and refute their lies. The concept of "the best response to speech you
> >    > > don't like is more speech" is totally alien to the homosexual subculture
> >    > > on the Internet. These control freaks are into censorship and B&D.
> >    > 
> >    > Here's a problem.  I don't have "technical" capabilities in the area of
> >    > communications software, and I have too full a plate to start studying
> >    > now.  But, I/we need to monitor the "moderator", to make sure he doesn't
> >    > allow people to attack others, then cut the responses.
> >    > 
> >    > If he does this, and he doesn't rectify it when it's called to his
> >    > attention, he would need to be punished in some way.  One of the
> >    > questions I have is, how do I know what's cut when all I subscribe to
> >    > is the uncensored list?  I do *not* want to subscribe to the filtered
> >    > list plus the "flames" list, out of principle.  Is this something that
> >    > would be forced on me/us in order to monitor the censorship?
> >    > 
> >    > In other words, can I separate the censored email without having to
> >    > have two accounts?
> >    > 
> > 
> >    it is easy undex unix, what you have to do is store arriving article
> >    in separate directories by message ID and run diff (with certain
> >    corrections) on these two directories.
> > 
> >    diff will print you the files that are in one dir and not in another.
> > 
> >    take an extraction, and delete too new articles (so that propagation
> >    does not screw you up).
> > 
> >    thats it
> > 
> > If you just want the differences and aren't too concerned with
> > timeliness, I'm planning on running a cypherpunks-rejects list containing all
> > the messages that went out the unedited list but didn't show up on the
> > moderated one within x hours (not sure what x should be yet).
> > 
> 
> a lot, since moderators sleep, eat, go to movies, etc.
> 
> 	- Igor.
> 

But x should be no more than 24.






Thread